Professional Soldiers

Professional Soldiers (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)
-   -   Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training For Men, Women (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42924)

Paslode 07-27-2013 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517024)
Just remember - this is all being pushed by the same people who thought the school Debate Team deserved the same Varsity Letter as the Football Team.


Revenge of the Nerds ;)

jbour13 07-27-2013 18:35

I keep telling myself.....5 years and I'm retirement eligible.

I'm in a low-density MOS. I have yet to hear any female (even those assigned to support SF and SOF) claim any desire to get out and "Mix it up" with any true believers.

This again, is always pushed by those with no skin in the fight.

I'm in that category myself, and I'm closer to the road than most have or ever will be by the nature of whom I work for and support.

Sad, just sad.

I agree with the shooting before dawn. Shouldn't be hard, apologists never seem to be out of bed before first light anyway. :D

The Reaper 07-27-2013 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 517046)
Will they really have the numbers to be able to have separate combat training for women?

Sure.

They can do it by correspondence course.

TR

PRB 07-27-2013 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004 (Post 517046)
Will they really have the numbers to be able to have separate combat training for women?

Not presently, but never, never underestimate the power of stupidity.

BKKMAN 07-27-2013 21:30

And the liberal mantra of the primacy of "Equality of Outcome" over "Equality of Opportunity" regardless of the consequences drum beat grows louder...

The death rattle of our country in general and our military in particular is deafening...

JHD 07-28-2013 04:45

Is this a move to get around, or in addition to, allowing women in SF? Frankly, I don't see how it would work either way and is a dumb idea. It seems to me that power brokers with no skin in the game come up with these brilliant plans for social experiments, and then do nothing when there is fallout from implementation. Very bad place for social experimenting.

Richard 07-28-2013 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517024)
Just remember - this is all being pushed by the same people who thought the school Debate Team deserved the same Varsity Letter as the Football Team.

I miss the point. Although I do not agree with all that seems to be happening with the on-going gender wars, I am one of those who believe those who represent a school in interscholastic competition on a sponsored academic team do, in fact, deserve the same "Varsity Letter" as those who represent the school in interscholastic athletic competition.

The "Varsity Letter" is awarded students who represent the school while competing in extracurricular activities - whether academic (debate, robotics, academic decathalon, etc) or athletic - and perform to a specified standard for a specified period of time.

The letter is a symbol of having risen to the challenge, and there are specific pins which are attached to the letter to show the activity in which one excelled. For example, crossed rifles for either JROTC drill team or marksmanship team, a tennis racquet for tennis team, a megaphone for cheerleading, a gavel for mock trial competition, etc. Many schools also use a sew-on patch with a year to indicate sports participation - e.g., a small football or basketball or winged foot sewn on the jacket's sleeve with the year for each year the student played and earned letter recognition in the sport.

Many schools - and we were one - also allow faculty to purchase "varsity letter jackets" for wear to such extracurricular competitions as a show of (1) pride in their students and school as well as (2) recognition of their role in "coaching" (mentoring) them and its importance to their academic and extracurricular success.

Just my $.02 to consider.

Richard

Peregrino 07-28-2013 08:52

It's very simple. In HS I participated in two of the examples you cited: JROTC drill team and marksmanship team; 3-years each, with winning seasons in both "sports". My school district didn't give letters for it and that didn't/doesn't bother me. Perhaps we just weren't/aren't enlightened enough to understand that everybody deserves a trophy simply for "representing the school".

Richard 07-28-2013 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517103)
Perhaps we just weren't/aren't enlightened enough to understand that everybody deserves a trophy simply for "representing the school".

FWIW - it wasn't just representation or participation, and not everyone received them; it was recognition for achieving a specified level of noteworthy achievement in "interscholastic competition."

Richard

Remington Raidr 07-28-2013 11:49

It's ALL about that last star . . .
 
Up there in the thin atmosphere of the Lt. Gens. you will NEVER have a short supply of General candidates willing to agree with whatever harebrained idea floated by the current citizens in charge. Like, um, water isn't wet. They gotta keep eyes on the prize. What you think does not matter to them.:rolleyes:

Peregrino 07-28-2013 11:50

Winning at District and Regional level where every school had a JROTC program isn't "a specified level of noteworthy achievement in "interscholastic competition"? Interesting.

Richard 07-28-2013 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino (Post 517113)
Winning at District and Regional level where every school had a JROTC program isn't "a specified level of noteworthy achievement in "interscholastic competition"? Interesting.

Huh?

Richard

Roguish Lawyer 07-28-2013 23:06

I got letters for being on the debate team when I was in high school. Didn't wear them because I thought it was really gay to take something historically associated with sports and extend it to other activities.

That said, I find the suggestion that debate is not a difficult and challenging activity requiring tons of preparation, hard work, talent and skill to be completely ignorant.

98G 07-29-2013 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRB (Post 517059)
Not presently, but never, never underestimate the power of stupidity.

Or the power of politics. The more ludicrous the suggestion, the harder to implement. So everyone can act like they are taking this "position" without ever actually doing anything.

Training is under discretionary spending. When the budget is proposed for this asinine idea, it may drop back out of sight.

By the way, the Army entrance requirements will have to change first. Those 2 inches difference wreak havoc on a 30 inch step.

Quote:

The cause for rejection for Armed Forces male applicants is height less than 60 inches or more than 80 inches. The cause for rejection for Armed Forces female applicants is height less than 58 inches or more than 80 inches.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03.


Copyright 2004-2019 by Professional Soldiers